Saturday, 20 February 2016

I
have heard the phrase ‘teaching to the test’ many times before but as I did not
know the real meaning of it, it sounded like a good thing. I have a feeling
that I am not the only one who thought so, so I think it is important to clear
up some of the confusion.

Assessment
expert W. James Popham defined two kinds of assessment-aware instruction:
‘curriculum teaching’ and ‘item-teaching’ (Popham, 2001). Curriculum teaching
focuses on full body knowledge and skills, and the test that follows only has a
sample of questions that assess students’ knowledge about the topic. According
to Drake, Reid and Kolohon (2014) this form of teaching prepares students for
the test, rather than teaching to the test.

Conversely, item
teaching consists of very narrow instruction based on specific questions that
are likely to be found on the test. In other words, only teaching the bits of
knowledge that students would be tested on. This is what the phrase ‘teaching to
the test’ refers to. Some teachers choose to take part in this unethical form
of teaching because they are afraid that their students’ low grades may reflect
poorly on themselves. Thinking back to my elementary and high school years, I
distinctly remember being taught how to solve very specific types of problems
prior to my EQUA testing, and very specific types of writing styles prior to my
OSSLT, and I believe there are many issues with that.

Firstly, teaching
to the test misrepresents how many students have actually grasped the topic,
and this diminishes the validity of the test (Popham, 2001). However, it goes
way beyond that, another significant concern is how it affects curriculum and
classroom instruction itself. Teachers who practice this method spend weeks or
months preparing for the test, which takes away from curriculum teaching.

Resnick and
Zurawsky (2005) suggest that drill-focused forms of teaching to the test can get
rid of opportunities to teach students more advanced cognitive skills, such as
how to solve problems and communicate effectively. They point to the work of
Levy and Murnane (2004), who claim that all kinds of jobs, but particularly
higher paying jobs, require fewer rote and routine skills and more complex
skills. They argue that young people who are denied the opportunity to develop
such advanced skills will be at an increasing disadvantage in the changing
economy of the 21st century (Levy & Murnane, 2004). That means educators
who settle for "drill and kill" instruction, or who do not at least
balance such instruction with more complex assignments, are trading long-term
benefits for students for short-term gains on standardized tests.

Drake, Reid and
Kolohon (2014) give the following suggestions for preparing students for a test
rather than teaching to the test:

Do not teach students the exact
items that will be on the test.

Give students practice with
question formats prior to testing.

Bear in mind that there are
times when students are able to perform better on tests than others.

Give students information about
the nature of test.

(Drake, Reid & Kolohon, 2014, pg. 162)

Clearly,
teaching to the test is a big no no, but there is definitely a lesson to be
learned from it. I believe this whole problem stems from standardized testing,
which has recently also been well known as a big no no among educators.
Standardized tests do not take into account student individualities, and lead
to a one-size-fits-all curriculum. These tests encourage a cookie-cutter
approach and as long as they exist, and there are high-stake tests such as them,
teachers are going to prepare students in whatever way they can, which leads to
teaching to the test.

Overall, this entire problem stems from one thing: our
education system is not changing as our students and society change. For that
reason, I thought it was very interesting what Levy and Murnane (2004)
postulated. Teaching to the test does not allow students to learn the 21st
century skills that they will need in their futures, and in order to put a stop
to this unethical form of teaching, we need to stop putting educators under the
spot light and placing so much pressure on them. We need to focus on what is
important; and that is the success of our students in our rapidly changing
society.